Transcript Highlights:

• And if a port elects not to receive those noncompliance fees, the noncompliance fees would instead be
• emissions that occurred before 2026.
• So the emissions are known, but the company is not required to purchase allowances to cover those emissions
• The new fee will cost about...
• The fees are not necessary.

Bills: HB2421 , HB1652 , HB2367 , HB2284

Committee: House Environment & Energy

Keywords: 6PPD, tires, environmental impact, public health, chemical regulation, HB1652, Salish Sea Protection and Marine Clean Fuels Act, marine fuel, low-sulfur fuel, sulfur emissions, ocean-going vessels, shipping, maritime pollution, air quality, particulate matter, Department of Ecology, port visit, regulated waters, fuel switching, vessel emissions

Transcript Highlights:

• And if a port elects not to receive those noncompliance fees, the fees would instead be deposited into
• those emissions.
• The new fee will cost about...
• The new fee will cost about...
• The fees are not necessary.

Summary: The committee heard testimony on three main bills. House Bill 2284 on reducing litter would remove a scheduled increase in plastic bag thickness, preserve the existing penalty on thicker bags, and create a litter solutions task force to use existing data and recommend further actions. Supporters from business, retail, agriculture, food industry, and the Department of Ecology said the bill takes a data-driven approach and could help reduce litter without imposing a full bag ban, while Ecology noted it already has a statewide litter study underway and raised cost and membership concerns. Opponents and other commenters generally favored the bill’s direction but emphasized the need for more study and careful implementation. No vote was taken. House Bill 1652 would require certain ocean-going vessels in Washington waters to use fuel with no more than 0.1% sulfur, with recordkeeping, Ecology oversight, penalties, and a substitute clarifying vessel coverage and exemptions. The prime sponsor and environmental and public health advocates said the bill would reduce air and water pollution from scrubbers and protect the Salish Sea, orcas, salmon, and nearby communities. Ports, shipping interests, and industry groups raised concerns that the bill could effectively discourage scrubbers, create burdens for irregular callers and cargo traffic, and affect port competitiveness, while some said the bill should be narrowed or further stakeholdered. The hearing also included discussion of a proposed substitute and possible impacts on vessels and port operations. House Bill 2367 would end special coal-related exemptions by limiting the cap-and-invest exemption to pre-2026 emissions, removing limits on additional greenhouse gas regulation for the coal plant, and repealing coal sales and use tax exemptions. Supporters said the bill would align state law with the planned closure of the Centralia coal plant, reinforce Washington’s climate policies, and remove outdated carve-outs. Business and petroleum representatives warned that if the plant were brought back into the cap-and-invest program, the allowance market could be affected and Ecology might need flexibility to adjust the program. The committee heard extensive testimony on all three bills but took no recorded votes or final action in the transcript.

Transcript Highlights:

• We currently have jurisdictions telling us we must pay permit fees, yet they won't give us the fees for
• We currently have jurisdictions telling us we must pay permit fees, yet they won't give us the fees for
• over a given period of time relative to the emission of one ton of carbon dioxide.
• It also includes emissions from how the building gets built.
• It's about 20% of those emissions.

Summary: The committee heard public testimony on several housing, building code, and permitting bills. HB 2228 would direct the State Building Code Council to convene a technical advisory group to recommend code amendments allowing scissor stairs in buildings with more than two dwelling units. Supporters, including architects, builders, and housing advocates, said scissor stairs could improve safety, reduce corridor and stair footprint, lower costs, and allow more efficient and denser housing layouts. The bill was then closed to public hearing. HB 2381 would create a performance-based code pathway for low-rise residential buildings and allow recognition of third-party certifications. The chair described it as a move from prescriptive to performance-based standards, with flexibility for builders and potential alignment with clean building goals. The Building Industry Association of Washington opposed the bill as written, saying the main need is a performance pathway in the energy code rather than the IBC, while FutureWise supported the concept but urged caution about the complexity and timeline of converting code to performance-based standards. The public hearing on HB 2381 was closed after testimony. HB 2418 would change permit review processes, including vesting rules for residential project permits in urban growth areas, pausing review clocks in certain circumstances, extending timelines to other fee-charging reviewing entities, and requiring a single permit responsible official and point of contact by 2027. Builders, developers, and housing advocates generally supported the bill’s coordination and timeline provisions, saying they would reduce delays and costs, though several groups raised concerns about the vesting section and completeness definitions. FutureWise and county representatives warned the vesting changes could create litigation or records issues, while the sponsor said the vesting portion might be reconsidered. The committee also heard HB 2273, which would require embodied carbon reduction standards for larger building projects through reuse, product-based reductions, or whole-building life-cycle assessment. Support came from architects, Commerce, and environmental justice advocates, who said the bill would reduce climate impacts and encourage innovation; opponents from the concrete and aggregate industry and a taxpayer group raised concerns about costs, supply-chain issues, conflicts with other legislation, and exemptions such as for schools. No votes were taken, and the committee adjourned after closing the public hearings.

Transcript Highlights:

• There is also a fee that is charged.
• Do you separately list out, like Uber does, the booking fee, which is the insurance fee?
• Do you separately list out like Uber does the booking fee, which is the insurance fee?
• “Do you separately list out, like Uber does, the booking fee, which is the insurance fee, on Lyft?”
• “These are like the Access for All fee or the Clean Miles Standard fee, but these are pennies compared

Summary: The hearing focused on transportation network companies in California, with the chair framing it as an informational hearing on the history, regulation, safety, climate, accessibility, and data issues surrounding Uber, Lyft, and smaller or autonomous TNC services. The CPUC described its decade-long regulatory role, including safety rules, background checks, insurance requirements, reporting obligations, and two major legislative programs from 2018: the Clean Miles Standard and the Access for All program. Members asked about complaint trends, data collection and disclosure, program implementation, and how the CPUC uses annual reports for policymaking, compliance, and program oversight. Uber and Lyft said the statewide framework has supported growth while providing safety and access benefits, but both companies emphasized that insurance is a major cost driver and argued that California’s UM/UIM requirement is unusually high compared with other vehicles. They said the Clean Miles Standard is pushing electrification but faces headwinds from EV affordability and charging infrastructure, while Access for All has expanded wheelchair-accessible service but still needs continued support. They also discussed transit partnerships, wildfire response, and the potential role of autonomous vehicles, with both companies saying human drivers will remain important and that future regulation should account for new technology. The final panel, including the San Francisco County Transportation Authority and UC Berkeley researchers, presented evidence that TNCs have increased congestion and reduced transit ridership, especially in dense urban areas. They described prior research showing TNCs contributed to congestion growth in San Francisco and noted that this work helped spur local taxes on ride-hailing trips to fund safety and transit improvements. The panel also discussed the CPUC’s evolving data-disclosure decisions, arguing that public access to TNC trip data is important for understanding transportation impacts and informing local policy.

Transcript Highlights:

• It's not an emissions standard.
• It's not an emission standard.
• Costs will be internalized with no fee to consumers.
• Consumers are still paying a fee. Consumers are still paying a fee.
• Retailers are still collecting that fee.

Committee: House Environment & Energy

Transcript Highlights:

• Then Kurt paid a $3 air pollution control fee. That is to help fund the emissions program.
• So depending on which county you live in, these fees might vary slightly, right, if you live in an emissions
• No, that's a fee that's in the fee schedule for us, and so we manage that fee so that we don't accrue
• price for the shop to do an emissions test. ...your registration and a fixed fee for that, but not a
• The registration fee is the same thing. Those fees, while we call them fees, are really taxes.

Committee: Joint Transportation Interim Committee

Transcript Highlights:

• </c> the retail delivery fee. the retail delivery fee.
• </c> were able to um refine the delivery fee. were able to um refine the delivery fee.
• This greenhouse gas emission district.
• The market is innovating and emissions.
• </c> Delaying the greenhouse gas emission Delaying the greenhouse gas emission legislation<01:36:40.400

Transcript Highlights:

• It establishes a rideshare fee.
• It is a fee with a rebate. The idea is that riders would pay a small fee. a question.
• Or any vehicle that doesn't have emissions. So, it applies to any zero-emissions vehicle.
• </c> applies to any zero emissions vehicle. applies to any zero emissions vehicle.
• And then that fee would go back to the driver to purchase an electric vehicle or any zero-emissions vehicle

Summary: The Committee on Transportation heard several bills, beginning with SB 2010, which would authorize impoundment of motor vehicles for certain alleged or committed traffic violations. The Department of Transportation supported the bill, while the Department of the Attorney General asked for clarification in section 4 on who could seek remedies and what remedies would be available. The Office of the Public Defender opposed the measure, citing unclear officer-initiated impound criteria, potential strain on judicial or administrative resources, and concerns about hardship for families and indigent owners; the Honolulu Prosecutor’s Office supported the bill with amendments, saying it should be limited to traffic offenses and could serve as an alternative to fines or imprisonment. The chair then recessed before moving to the next items. The committee next heard SB 2527 on commercial driver licensing, which would require state and county firefighters exempt from CDL requirements to be subject to an alcohol and substance abuse policy equivalent to or stronger than federal DOT standards. DOT, the Department of Human Resources Development, county officials, and the Hawaiʻi Firefighters Association all indicated support. SB 2697, which would prohibit driving on roadway shoulders except in limited circumstances, also drew DOT support, with the Attorney General, judiciary, and others submitting comments. SB 2812, requiring driver license applicants to be tested on the dangers larger vehicles pose to pedestrians and bicyclists, was supported by DOT but opposed by the Public Defender, who argued the excessive-speeding portion was too broad for first offenses and that the DUI-related language was unnecessary because DUI relicensing already requires re-examination. SB 291, clarifying that drivers whose licenses were revoked for certain alcohol-related offenses must undergo re-examination before relicensing, received DOT support. The committee then took up SB 3044, which would remove references to pedestrian countdown timers and the requirement that pedestrians begin crossing before the timer starts. DOT opposed the bill, but Hawaiʻi Appleseed supported it, arguing the current rule is confusing and can lead to citations even when pedestrians can safely cross. The Department of Health submitted late comments emphasizing the importance of pedestrian-friendly infrastructure and physical activity, and the chair noted the split in testimony. Finally, SB 2995 proposed a zero-emissions rideshare rebate program funded by a rideshare fee and administered by DOT. Earthjustice strongly supported the bill, describing it as a fee-and-rebate structure to help rideshare drivers transition to zero-emissions vehicles. A witness for Tom Yamachika suggested that if the state wants to tax ridesharing, it should amend existing tax law instead of creating a new chapter, but the bill’s supporters said DOT was better suited to administer the rebate program and that similar models exist in California and Washington. The committee also heard SB 3153, which would authorize DOT to designate airport special district zones at airports statewide to improve security and enforcement; DOT’s airports deputy director supported the measure, saying it would clarify jurisdiction and help address trespassing and hazards, and senators asked about boundaries, mapping, and coordination with the Attorney General. No votes were taken in the portion of the hearing provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• It's not an emissions standard.
• There is no fee for consumers on the covered products.
• Paint Care is funded through a fee on new paint sales.
• Costs will be internalized, with no fee to consumers.
• Consumers are still paying a fee. Retailers are still collecting that fee.

Summary: The committee held an interim work session focused first on carbon capture, utilization, and sequestration (CCUS), then on hazardous waste and extended producer responsibility (EPR). On the CCUS topic, industry and nonprofit presenters described point-source capture, direct air capture, mineralization, and geologic sequestration, emphasizing Washington’s basalt formations and state trust lands as strong candidates for storage. They argued that CCUS can help hard-to-abate industrial sectors, support jobs and investment, and provide a pathway for compliance, while also noting the need for clearer permitting, subsurface rights, pipeline authority, and storage infrastructure. Ecology and Commerce staff explained current state policy touchpoints, including Cap-and-Invest offsets and exemptions for permanently stored CO2, the public comment process underway to define “thousand-year” permanence, and how CCUS might fit within the Clean Energy Transformation Act without counting emitting generation as non-emitting. Some presenters supported more state action and primacy over federal permitting, while others warned about costs, energy use, uncertain capture performance, and the need to ensure real net greenhouse gas reductions and long-term liability protections. Members asked about public meetings, whether mineralized carbon would qualify as exempt under the Climate Commitment Act, the timeline for Ecology guidance, aquifer and water-quality concerns, energy intensity of capture systems, and liability if storage later proves problematic. Responses said Ecology’s guidance process is already underway, public meetings will be virtual, mineralized carbon would likely qualify if it meets the permanence standard, and EPA rules require storage in deep saline formations below drinking water aquifers. Industry speakers said capture energy use varies by source and concentration, and one presenter noted that some states use trust funds funded by injectors to address long-term liability. The second half of the session shifted to hazardous waste and EPR. Ecology staff reviewed existing product stewardship programs for electronics, paint, batteries, and mercury lights, and described moderate risk waste and household hazardous waste management in Washington. They highlighted that E-Cycle and PaintCare are producer-funded, that the battery stewardship program will begin in 2027, and that the mercury lamp program is in transition after its prior stewardship organization exited, prompting enforcement notices and a pending replacement plan. Ecology recommended best practices for future EPR programs, including clear producer and product definitions, full producer funding, convenience standards, annual reporting, and strong agency enforcement and plan approval authority. Local government speakers from King County and Douglas County described rising collection costs, equity and access barriers, rural travel distances, and the need for stable funding and flexible local implementation. King County said it collected over 3 million pounds of hazardous products in 2025 and supports EPR as a way to shift costs from ratepayers to producers, while Douglas County emphasized that rural residents will participate when services are accessible and that future systems should account for geography and local infrastructure.

Transcript Highlights:

• And other states have raised that handling fee.
• And other states have raised that handling fee.
• That bill did not raise the handling fee.
• are paying that handling fee.
• If those systems lack an emission control device, they can have PM2.5 emission rates an order of magnitude

Committee: Joint Joint Committee on Telecommunications, Utilities and Energy

Summary: The hearing focused mainly on two subjects: expansion of the Massachusetts bottle bill and bills to remove woody biomass from state clean-energy and greenhouse-gas programs. On the bottle bill, supporters from municipal, environmental, public health, and local government groups argued that the 5-cent deposit is outdated, redemption rates have fallen, and expanding coverage to more beverage containers—especially water, sports drinks, and small alcohol bottles—would reduce litter, cut plastic waste and microplastics, and save cities and towns money. Several speakers also backed raising handling fees for retailers and redemption centers, and some supported restoring a Clean Environment Fund so unclaimed deposits would support recycling-related purposes. Opponents, including the Massachusetts Beverage Association and the National Waste and Recycling Association, argued that curbside recycling and transfer-station systems are more convenient, that the targeted containers are valuable to local recycling programs, and that the proposal would shift costs onto consumers and municipalities. Committee members questioned witnesses about redemption rates, handling fees, the 2014 ballot question, and whether the bill had changed from prior sessions. The biomass portion drew strong support from Springfield officials, state legislators, environmental advocates, and public health groups. They said woody biomass should not count as clean energy because burning wood produces particulate pollution and carbon emissions, and they warned that current law contains a loophole that could help finance the proposed Palmer Renewable Energy biomass plant in Springfield. Witnesses emphasized Springfield’s air-quality and asthma burdens, the public health impacts of PM2.5, and the need to close the loophole before a January 1, 2026 deadline. One forest-industry witness supported a separate bill promoting modern wood heat with pollution controls, arguing it is cleaner than older wood systems and has minimal ratepayer cost, while noting that those credits would be affected if the governor’s broader energy affordability bill repeals the alternative energy portfolio standard. No votes were taken during the hearing. The chairs managed testimony by alternating between the bottle bill and biomass topics, asking speakers to keep remarks brief and to note when they agreed with prior testimony. Several legislators also testified in support of the bills, and committee members asked follow-up questions on deposit levels, retailer handling fees, recycling economics, and the public-health rationale for the biomass restrictions.

Transcript Highlights:

• We're going to continue to have these NOx emissions.
• It will reduce emissions. First of all, hydrogen has no carbon emissions whatsoever.
• CalRecycle announced their new fee, and it's about 5,000 percent higher than the interim fee.
• the places and what are these fees.
• It's tax-exempted on zero-emission vehicle refueling equipment.

Summary: The committee heard several energy, environmental, recycling, and land-use bills, beginning with SB 925 by Senator McNerney, which would direct the California Energy Commission to develop a statewide roadmap for fusion energy. Supporters said the bill would help California retain leadership in fusion research and commercialization, attract investment, and create jobs, while some members emphasized the need to avoid overregulation and keep the state competitive. No opposition testified, and the bill was later approved on a 4-0 vote and held on call. The committee also heard SB 1350, another McNerney bill, to expand the use of green hydrogen in the power sector by allowing renewable portfolio standard credit for turbines using renewable hydrogen. Supporters framed it as a way to support clean energy reliability, preserve tax credits, and create jobs, while opponents including TURN and Earthjustice warned about greenwashing, resource shuffling, and increased NOx emissions. The author and chair described committee amendments as adding guardrails, and the bill passed 4-0 and was held on call. Senator Grayson presented SB 1145, which would streamline CEQA and related review for qualifying projects in the Concord Reuse Project Area, part of the former Concord Naval Weapons Station. The bill is intended to speed a long-planned transit-oriented development with housing, commercial space, parks, and open space; supporters included local officials, labor groups, and business organizations, while a housing group raised concerns about affordable housing guarantees but still supported the CEQA exemption. The committee described the bill as balancing streamlining with retained environmental review and approved it 4-0, held on call. Senator Cabaldon’s SB 1341, dealing with CalRecycle processing fees for bag-in-a-box wine and spirits containers, also drew support from the wine industry and some environmental groups that wanted a workable recycling market, while glass packaging and other opponents objected to giving CalRecycle too much discretion; it too passed 4-0 and was held on call. The committee then heard SJR 13 by Senator Padilla, urging the U.S. to seek enforceable commitments to eliminate transboundary sewage pollution at the 2026 USMCA review. Supporters described severe public health and environmental harms from sewage and runoff in the Tijuana River and New River watersheds, especially for border and farmworker communities, and the resolution passed 4-0. Padilla’s SB 1033, requiring protein product manufacturers to test for and disclose heavy metals, drew support from consumer and public health groups citing Consumer Reports findings, while industry groups argued for narrower scope, QR-code options, and thresholds tied to health standards; the bill passed 3-0 and was held on call. Senator Ashby’s SB 1010, creating a manufacturer-funded system for refrigerant recovery from discarded appliances, was supported as a climate and enforcement measure but opposed by appliance manufacturers and recyclers who said existing law already regulates refrigerants and that the bill could raise costs and reduce recycling; it passed 4-0 and was held on call. Finally, Senator Caballero presented SB 1183, requiring a state study of the environmental, land-use, and economic impacts of industrial solar in the Central Valley. Supporters said the bill would help ensure solar development benefits local communities and farmland, while solar industry groups argued it duplicated existing work and should better reflect solar’s benefits; the bill was heard but no vote was taken in the portion provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• There is also a fee that is charged.
• Do you separately list out, like Uber does, the... booking fee, which is the insurance fee, on Lyft?
• So how is it, the insurance fee, currently?
• These are local government fees, insurance, etc. and costs.
• standard fee, but these are pennies compared to insurance.

Committee: House Communications and Conveyance

Transcript Highlights:

• And I think the progressive fee is great.
• And I think the progressive fee is great.
• And so you personally want to get rid of emissions tests. Do you know why we have emissions tests?
• And so you personally want to get rid of emissions test. Do you know why we have emissions tests?
• Have to pay these emissions-testing fees and have to go out of their way when no one else in the state

Summary: The House convened with prayer, the Pledge of Allegiance, and approved the House Journal by a 125-0 roll call vote. Members then spent a large portion of the morning recognizing special guests, interns, students, and constituents, including school groups, interns, a Savannah Bananas player, and several birthday and personal privilege announcements. On legislation, the House agreed to conference on Senate Substitute for Senate Bill 1421. The chamber then took up Senate Substitute for Senate Bill 1000, a bipartisan measure to reauthorize the Missouri Tourism Supplemental Revenue Fund and continue support for the Division of Tourism and Missouri Film Office. Supporters from both parties emphasized tourism’s economic importance statewide; the bill passed 136-6. The House next debated House Committee Substitute for Senate Bill 1020, an omnibus Department of Revenue bill covering fee office contracting, vehicle registration penalties, Real ID document retention, and other DOR changes. The body adopted an amendment lowering late registration penalties, making document retention opt-in, and restoring a five-year plate option, followed by a second amendment removing cosmetic damage as a basis for rejecting rebuilt-vehicle inspections. The bill then passed 130-10. Later, the House began debate on a combined judiciary/civil legislation bill involving insurance assignment-of-benefits restrictions, anti-SLAPP protections, workers’ compensation and court administration changes, and expungement-related funding; members adopted a title change and several amendments, including one to make attorney-fee awards more even in anti-SLAPP motions, while also debating a proposed St. Louis police legal expense fund amendment and whether it had been properly vetted.

Transcript Highlights:

• plus the EV fee being maybe a bit of a surprise for customers?
• I do think the way that the EV fee is, even just calling it an EV fee, is hard for people to understand
• And starting with light-duty vehicles, the zero-emission vehicle infrastructure, and zero-emission vehicles
• Pierce Transit has a zero-emissions project.
• On emissions, we don't have verified reductions yet.

Committee: House Transportation

Transcript Highlights:

• </c> C would require Global emissions C would require Global emissions reductions<00:16:26.920><c> of
• It's establishing a total emissions target. So right now, our target is a net emissions target.
• It's establishing a total emissions target. So right now, our target is a net emissions target.
• and the majority of sector emissions and the majority of those<01:25:33.080><c> emissions</c><01:25:
• </c><01:43:31.440><c> they</c> I mentioned visitors pay the fee they I mentioned visitors pay the fee

Transcript Highlights:

• Our residents are experiencing these emissions.
• , wouldn't reduce GHG emissions further.
• It would just change where those emissions come from.
• It was for some specific fire prevention activities, and so I wouldn't think of this fee as a fee that
• or near-zero-emission, where we have the capability.

Summary: The Budget Subcommittee No. 4 hearing focused on the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund (GGRF) and cap-and-trade reauthorization, with members and panelists discussing how to balance climate goals, affordability, and legislative oversight. The chair emphasized the hearing as a broad review of past GGRF spending and future options, while the LAO outlined how GGRF revenues are generated, how variable they have been, and the tradeoffs between continuous appropriations and annual budget control. Two academic panelists, Dr. Kyle Meng and Danny Cullen Ward, argued that cap-and-trade remains an effective climate policy, but stressed that future revenue will depend heavily on market design, allowance allocation, and price levels. They also raised the idea that GGRF could be used more directly for affordability, especially by lowering electricity costs, and for targeted investments in technologies that the market would not otherwise support. Committee members pressed the panelists on where revenues come from, how much has actually been spent, and whether continuous appropriations reduce oversight. CARB staff said more than $33 billion has been generated to date and a little over $11–12 billion has been spent, with the rest committed or in process, and noted that project timelines can be lengthy. Members also asked about ways to lower electricity rates, reduce wildfire-related utility liabilities, and support electrification. The panelists said transportation fuels are the largest source of GGRF revenue, that industrial emitters receive a smaller share of free allowances, and that reducing wildfire liability and investing in grid-scale batteries could help lower costs and speed decarbonization. Public commenters largely urged the Legislature to preserve or expand continuous appropriations for specific climate programs. Speakers supported funding for nature-based solutions, natural and working lands, urban greening, agricultural climate solutions, waste and composting programs, clean transportation, AB 617 community air protection, clean cars, transit, affordable housing near transit, and dairy digesters. Several groups argued these programs are cost-effective, provide public health and affordability benefits, and should receive dedicated shares of GGRF. Others urged reducing free allowances and using more GGRF revenue to directly lower energy costs for households. No votes were taken during the hearing.

Bills: SF856 , HF4482 , HF3672 , HF1234 , HF4591 , HF3554 , HF936

Committee: House State Government Finance and Policy

Keywords: Inspector General, fraud prevention, state audit, public funds, misuse, transparency, government accountability, HF4482, Minnesota Historical Society, state historic sites, historic site management, historic preservation, county historical society, local historical society, municipality, county government, admission fees, grants-in-aid, site operations, site maintenance

Transcript Highlights:

• Members, 3430 aims to make the collection process more efficient for the court costs and fines and fees
• Court costs, fines, and fees collection is actually down a few percent.
• judgment on fines and costs, what is the percentage that that individual or group would collect as their fee

Bills: HB2650 , HB3277 , HB3386 , HB3419 , HB3430 , HB3742 , HB3791 , HB3835 , HB3905 , HB3968 , HB4119 , HB4153 , HB4408

Committee: House Judiciary and Public Safety Oversight

Keywords: probate, estate administration, summary administration, decedent, inheritance, vehicle inspection, title registration, salvage vehicles, ownership, Oklahoma Statutes, evictions, forcible entry, mediation, residency proof, children, housing law, corruption, nonpublic information, government accountability, criminal law

Transcript Highlights:

• This bill refers to connection fees.
• Senator Gainer: “So my understanding is that impact fees can be a range of different fees.
• “Delayed payment for impact fees.
• fees that are included in this bill.
• We’ve looked at impact fees.

Bills: SB6091 , SB6096 , SB6153 , SB6200

Committee: Senate Housing

Keywords: SB 6091, Washington real estate, real estate broker, residential property, home listings, exclusive listing, limited marketing, open marketing, fair housing, brokerage law, consumer protection, housing access, MLS, seller disclosure, buyer representation, dual agency, designated broker, managing broker, short sale, real estate pamphlet

Bills: HB505 , HB 1080 , HB1585 , HB1593 , HB1816 , HB1950 , HB1985 , HB2421 , HB2615 , HB2713

Committee: House Intergovernmental Affairs

Keywords: notice publication, alternative media, government transparency, civic engagement, local government, housing finance, residential development, tax exemption, mortgage, suicide prevention, peer support, fire departments, mental health, advisory committee, e-cigarettes, public health, schools, retail regulation, HB 1950, municipal court